In March, Richard Spencer, a prominent white supremacist, cancelled his speaking engagements at U.S. universities, saying he was deterred by “antifa,” a loose international network of radical anti-fascist groups that aims to shut down far-right talks and rallies. For antifa members and supporters, Spencer’s capitulation was both vindication of their aggressive tactics and a sign of their success in opposing fascism.

These confrontations between far-right activists and antifa groups — on the rise since the election of Donald Trump — are often presented as involving two opposing values: free speech on one side and the danger of allowing fascists to appear in public on the other. What is missing in this framing, however, is an understanding of the dynamics of censorship and of nonviolent action as an alternative.

At the forefront of this clash of values is Mark Bray’s 2017 book “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” which provides the most comprehensive justification for antifa tactics available. It has sold briskly and received considerable attention among its target audience of antifa activists.

Bray readily acknowledges that “Antifa” was written “on the run” during the early days of the Trump era to meet the demand for information about newly visible anti-fascist activists. The immediate catalyst was the assault on Spencer by a masked man in 2017, which generated a popular meme and had many news outlets asking the question, “Is it okay to punch a Nazi?”

Responding in the affirmative, antifa activists believe that the ends (“stopping fascism before it becomes unstoppable”) justify the means: violence. The more thoughtful members of antifa add the qualifier “when necessary.” As Murray, one of Bray’s anonymous U.S. informants puts it, “You fight them by writing letters and making phone calls so you don’t have to fight them with fists. You fight them with fists so you don’t have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don’t have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don’t have to fight them with tanks.” Beyond punching Nazis, antifa tactics drawing significant media attention include “no platforming” — or blocking or disrupting speeches — and “doxxing,” which consists of publishing private information about a target on social media to encourage harassment.

Despite its genesis as instant history, “Antifa” is a serious book that raises fundamental questions about the viability of liberal tenets of free speech and the role of violence in political protests. Bray, a historian, visiting scholar at Dartmouth College and an Occupy Wall Street organizer, used his radical credentials to gain access to the antifa network, which generally operates in secrecy. He interviewed 61 active or former members of antifa groups from 17 countries. Supportive of the goals of antifa, but open to criticism of the movement, Bray argues that “militant anti-fascism is a reasonable, historically-informed response to the fascist threat that persisted after 1945 and that has become especially menacing in recent years.” The authorial voice he projects is humane and reflective, occasionally punctuated with references to his personal history and activist experiences.

The first two chapters are devoted to the history of fascism and anti-fascism, from the 1899 founding of the anti-Dreyfusard League to the early 2000s when antifa groups began to rethink their strategies in light of the rise of new far-right parties in Europe. While historical contextualizing is essential to understanding antifa’s “never again” rationale for preventative violence, Bray packs too many facts into too little space for readers without a deep background in European history to readily absorb and retain, making these crucial early chapters a hard slog. This is unfortunate because the subsequent chapters are accessible and illuminating. Chapter Three addresses the recent emergence, in response to the refugee crisis in Europe, of “pin-stripe Nazis”: nationalists who cover their underlying fascist tendencies with a veneer of respectability. They claim to be protecting democracy against its enemies while providing a cover for racism, Islamophobia and restoration of patriarchal gender regimes.

The remaining chapters focus on the theory and politics of antifa at more pragmatic levels: lessons to be drawn from history; no platforming and free speech; strategy, including internal criticism within some antifa groups; the dangers of machismo within antifa; fetishization of violence; feminism and antifa; nonviolent antifa tactics; militant anti-fascism and public opinion; antifa groups functioning as reserve police in some Nazi encounters; popular culture’s relation to antifa (via punk, hipster and hooligan subcultures) and much more. There are two appendices: One offers advice to recruits from veteran antifa activists, while the other provides a bibliography on North American and European works on anti-fascism. Unfortunately, the book lacks an index.

The conundrum of no tolerance for intolerance

Bray defends no-platforming, saying one of history’s lessons is that “it doesn’t take that many fascists to make fascism.” Mussolini and Hitler demonstrated that once fascism is legitimized, it can expand rapidly and quickly consolidate its power. Another is that, historically, fascists gained power legally. Therefore, Bray concludes that fascism must be stopped at its source.

He contends that most antifa groups do not reject freedom of speech in principle, but they maintain that the struggle against fascism takes precedence. On this point, he quotes Joe, one of his respondents, who says, “The idea that freedom of speech is the most important thing that we can protect can only be held by someone who thinks that life is analogous to a debate hall.” Bray argues that no one actually lives up to the absolutist free speech standard that liberals use to condemn antifa. History, he points out, is full of examples of liberal abridgments of free speech, including some systemic ones, such as wartime press censorship, incitement-to-violence prohibitions, obscenity laws, copyright infringement and incarceration.

Bray argues that the liberal Enlightenment ideal of the best, most rational, argument prevailing in a free and open debate does not take into account the irrational and emotional appeal of fascism. Citing appeasement in the 1930s, Bray contends that liberalism has failed to provide a reliable bulwark against fascism. To be sure, free speech is fragile and liberalism’s failures are legion. That is why these positions do require radical interrogation in struggles for social justice. Free expression is, however, a fundamental feature of participatory democracy, whether liberal or socialist.

When Richard Spencer announced on Twitter that he was canceling his “college tour” because antifa had escalated its efforts and — in his view — police were not responding adequately, it seemed like a victory for antifa. If so, it was pyrrhic. Antifa’s tactics, which attracted hostile media coverage, did little to advance struggles against racism, patriarchal gender regimes, ableism and the other causes the movement supports. Intentional bureaucratic obstructionism by various university administrators may have done as much to undermine Spencer’s tour as antifa. For example, he decided to quit the tour when only 12 people showed up for his appearance at Michigan State University, which scheduled his talk during spring break when most students were away from campus.

Bray faults liberal free speech theory for its failure to live up to an absolutist standard of free speech and for its hypocrisy. Yet, in doing so, he unwittingly encounters the conundrum that has dogged free speech theorists for centuries: what Karl Popper referred to as “the paradox of intolerance” in his 1945 work “The Open Society and Its Enemies.” Any system that legally valorizes tolerance, regardless of its ideology, must — by logical extension — resort to intolerance of the intolerant. Like liberalism, antifa and Bray are also caught in this logical trap. As Bray puts it, “An anti-fascist outlook has no tolerance for ‘intolerance.’” Yet, antifa is founded upon aggressive intolerance of fascists.

Presumably Bray means no tolerance for racism, misogyny, homo- and transphobia, etc. Intolerance of intolerance is the socio-logic, if not the formal rationale, for the European Union’s controversial 2007 measure outlawing Holocaust denial. That precedent also points to the possibility of legalistic tactics that antifa could use in some national jurisdictions, although it does not have the machismo appeal of violent confrontation.

Democracy has always been aspirational. Free speech is a desired goal, though very unevenly realized in practice. Bray persuasively chronicles some of the many failures of liberal democracy and free speech, and underscores the importance of radical struggles for greater economic and social justice. Antifa’s binary framing of choices — speech or violence — does seem to give Bray pause at times, as it should. He contends that the society that anti-authoritarians seek to create would offer more opportunities for free expression than the liberal status quo. For antifa, that is a society inspired by revolutionary socialism; for Bray, preferably one that is anti-authoritarian and non-hierarchical.

Suppression of free speech is a method fascists use to consolidate power and amplify the reach of the irrational emotional appeals of their propaganda. Hitler, for example, quashed opposition, banning trade unions and opposition parties, and established the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, which controlled German media and cultivated anti-Semitism and the Aryan myth, most famously through films like “The Eternal Jew” and “Triumph of the Will.” Antifa, by seeking to suppress the speech of fascists, actually mimics their own techniques rather than providing an alternative.

Justifying violence on moral, not strategic, grounds

Bray’s history of fascism and anti-fascism gives the most attention to violence on both sides. Fascists in inter-war Italy and Germany used violence and so did their opponents. Bray recounts clash after clash. From the 1940s to the present, he portrays anti-fascism as a continuing attempt to prevent fascists and neo-Nazis from being able to organize in public, with anti-fascists assaulting right-wing protesters and speakers. In some cases, this goes further, with anti-fascists assaulting anyone just wearing fascist garb, or bombing the offices and homes of prominent right-wingers. Bray recounts these events, presenting no reservations about any tactics used.

Bray argues that fascists need to be cowed into submission before they gain any sort of profile, arguing that the failure of the left in the 1920s and 1930s was letting fascism grow without sufficient resistance, though his claim is questionable. Most of Bray’s arguments concerning violence are about justifying it. The limitation of this approach is that even if one believes a violent action might be justified, morally or politically, it still may not be the most effective approach.

Bray presents violence as the alternative to liberal approaches, which rely on rational discourse and policing. Certainly, liberalism has often failed to deal with right-wing threats. However, there is another alternative: nonviolent action, the strategic use of petitions, rallies, strikes, boycotts, sit-ins and a host of other methods. This alternative has a rich history — including, for example, countering fascists using clowning. Bray can hardly avoid discussing nonviolent action because it is now used widely in contemporary social movements.

To his credit, Bray addresses nonviolent action. He spends much of his treatment countering the arguments about fascism presented by Erica Chenoweth, a leading nonviolence scholar and co-author with Maria Stephan of the acclaimed study “Why Civil Resistance Works.” Bray cites particular cases in his attempt to counter the findings of Chenoweth and Stephan. This is strange because Chenoweth and Stephan do not claim violence is never effective, but rather that a statistical analysis of violent and nonviolent anti-regime campaigns shows that nonviolent movements are more likely to be successful and to lead to freer societies years later.

More seriously, Bray does not come to grips with the assumptions underlying nonviolent action. As Chenoweth and Stephan show, and many others have argued, a key reason why nonviolent action is effective is because it enables participation by most sectors of the population, including women, children, elderly and people with disabilities. Anyone can participate in a boycott.

A second key reason for the effectiveness of nonviolent action is precisely its avoidance of violence. Many people see violent attacks on peaceful, non-resisting protesters as unfair, even inhumane. As a result, such attacks can recoil against the attackers, generating greater support for the protesters. This effect, called political jiu-jitsu, is reduced or nullified when protesters are themselves violent.

Bray is quite right to point out that many campaigns, categorized as primarily nonviolent, used some violence. But this does not mean the violence helped the campaigns. By the logic of political jiu-jitsu, it may have weakened them.

Throughout “Antifa,” Bray actually gives examples of when fascist violence was counterproductive for the fascists and examples of when anti-fascist violence was counterproductive for the anti-fascists. For example, in Sweden in the 1990s, “neo-Nazi violence provoked a harsh societal backlash.” Then, in 2000, a Swedish neo-Nazi, Daniel Wretström, “allegedly was killed in a fight with immigrant youth,” and was seen as a martyr for his cause. The neo-Nazis subsequently held an annual march in his memory. However, Bray does not dwell on cases in which violence is counterproductive and does not link them to a backfire process.

In terms of nonviolence theory, one of the shortcomings of much anti-fascist campaigning is that the use of violence limits participation. Bray notes the challenges that antifa groups have with excess machismo and the rise of feminist antifa (fantifa) groups in response. He gives no information about the demographics of antifa groups, in particular their age and ability profiles. It is reasonable to assume that most antifa activists involved in physical confrontations are young fit men, the same profile as most military forces and combatants in any armed struggle.

“Antifa” succeeds in its primary mission: providing English-language readers with an overview of the antifa network, its purpose, diverse international groupings, ideology and tactics. The book is an informed and revealing, yet one-sided, account of efforts against fascism. What it omits is a sustained discussion of strategy to counter fascism by any means except using force to deter or fight the presence of the far right in public spaces. This one-dimensional approach limits the potential for participation of many sympathetic people. Furthermore, it can even alienate potential supporters who might be won over and involved using less confrontational tactics.

Using violence sends a message that the way to oppose those with whom you disagree is to silence their speech. This can legitimate use of the same methods by opponents. Ultimately, suppressing free speech and using violence are not good ways to build the sort of free society Bray desires, because they fail to foster the attitudes and skills necessary for such a society to develop and flourish.

Sue Curry Jansen is professor of Media and Communication at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Her most recent book is Stealth Communications: The Spectacular Rise of Public Relations (Polity, 2017).

Brian Martin is emeritus professor of social sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia and vice president of Whistleblowers Australia. He is the author of 18 books and hundreds of articles on dissent, nonviolence, scientific controversies, democracy and other topics.

If it walks like a fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist… it’s a fascist. Calling themselves “anti-fascists” doesn’t change the reality of their actions.

To borrow from Wikipedia fascism is “characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.” In other words, do what we say or we will use violence to suppress you (yup, Antifa does that). As for the controlling industry and commerce, well they love to brag about boycotts, destruction of local businesses they disapprove of, and generally do want to control industry and commerce by forcing it to be other than what it is currently. They want final say on what is or is not acceptable industry and commerce.

” Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation” Yup, that sounds like Antifa as well. In fact that very argument is in this article from Bray (maybe not the imperialism part per say).

“One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations (anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism); nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership.” The masculinity part is again something they would argue against but if “masculinity” is defined as aggression, risk taking, use of violence, and the other usual suspects, then the show fits.

I’ll say it again: If it walks like a fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist… it’s a fascist. Calling themselves “anti-fascists” doesn’t change the reality of their actions.

I thank the authors for summarizing the book. We certainly see the rise of right-wing populism in many countries. Antifa tactics that don’t mobilize large scale cooperative power but rely on small-scale intensive intimidation lead to short term tactical successes and long term movement failures.

Thanks for this review. I am consistently surprised about how defenders of a violence based antifa stance fail to recognize that their victories have been few. Further, once violence has been chosen it consistently erodes democracy and broad participation, where as nonviolence can be the more inclusive strategy.

“Suppression of free speech is a method fascists use to consolidate power and amplify the reach of the irrational emotional appeals of their propaganda.” But by “no-platforming”, that’s precisely what antifa do – when you gaze into the abyss, you become the abyss. If you look at the techniques the antifa use, they are *precisely* irrational and emotional appeals. To debate a fascist requires the use of reason, to show why fascism is undesirable requires reason and evidence – and there is plenty of evidence freely available, to show why leaders tend to become corrupted and act to advance their own interests the more power over others that they arrogate unto themselves. Making emotional appeals and performing irrational actions, such as “punching a Nazi” merely create reaction and division – and most people are repelled by such things; the people at the extremes – the “true believers” on either side – are confirmed in their hate for each other, and nothing is resolved. Taken far enough, and this results in civil war, and I can remember my grandmother talking about goddamned Yankee carpetbaggers even though she was born in 1892, 27 years after the end of the war. The issues continued to be undealt with even today, and that’s due to the emotional appeals and irrational acts performed by the opposing sides, hoisting Confederate flags on the one hand, and tearing down statues on the other – but the root issues are never approached with reason, and so the conflict must continue.

The way to build a broad-based antifascist movement, indeed any kind of anti-authoritarian movement, is to realize that most people, in fact the great majority of people, don’t want to be told what to do, or to be bullied into submission to some leader or group of leaders. Most people strongly resent – eventually to the point of resistance – the micromanagement of their lives. That’s why people hate school, it’s the top-down control that denies them the chance to self-organize, to solve problems and build things on their own without outside compulsion or interference. That’s the point of this quote: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress The way to building any broad-based anti-authoritarian movement is first to be non-authoritarian, to re-learn how to self-organize and co-operate, two skills which have been conditioned out of the great majority of the population by compulsory, top-down regulated schooling – see https://wesjones.com/gatto1.htm That’s the way, not shouting down others and attempting to bully them into submission to you – which just turns you into what they are.

Can antifa build an effective broad-based anti-fascist movement? No. Nor do I necessarily think that is what they are trying to accomplish. I think many antifa see themselves as guerrilla fighters against facists–not as a broad based anti-fascist movement.

Now consider the unasked question. Why haven’t people who follow the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi or Gene Sharp already built a broad-based anti-fascist movement? The teachings of these leaders have been around for many decades. Fascism and its threats have been around equally long. I challenge the idea that all we need is more time. I challenge the idea that an effective broad-based anti-fascist movement has already been built.

The world’s most militarized nation (USA) is showing signs of a move towards authoritarianism. The American oligarchic class has become as strong as it ever has been, and the oligarchic class is a friend of fascism as long as fascists protect their wealth. The oligarchic class has made elections so expensive that the only people on the ballot are oligarchs or people financially dependent on oligarchs. It doesn’t matter who votes or how many vote if the only people on the ballot are authoritarians and fascists. As we speak, authoritarian leaders in the USA are weakening governmental institutions and electoral processes–a step that could eventually help fascists in their stated desire to overthrow the current government and replace it with a fascist government.

I do not support antifa. I do not see anyone else having success at building an effective broad-based anti-fascist movement, either. Don’t kid yourselves. Antifa is stepping into a gap left open by other nonviolence movements. If other nonviolence movements were effectively fighting fascism on a broad scale, then people would see no need for antifa.

I thank the authors for giving a measured, thoughtful overview of Mark Bray’s “Anti-Fascist Handbook,” which I still haven’t gotten around to reading. Most of the first, third, and the beginning of the second sections of the article contain valuable, intelligent analysis. The article is at its best when discussing nonviolence theory, and evaluating the flaws and merits of Bray’s book. Without having read it, I get the sense that the article has given fair consideration and assessment of “Antifa” the book.

Unfortunately, I also find the article is extremely marred by failing to offer the same sober consideration and analysis of antifacist activists and the tactics they employ, with a few specious, dismissive epithets thrown in for good measure. There’s nothing wrong with discussing antifascist tactics critically and rejecting them – indeed, as a staunch pacifist myself, this is something I would dearly like to see. But it is the height of intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty to make claims of such critical analysis, and then to fail to engage with actual antifascist positions, and instead rely on facile conservative cliches.

The article at one point accuses antifascist activists of adhering to binary thinking between “speech” and “violence.” This may or may not be so, but the article then proceeds to accuse antifascist activists, multiple times, of “suppressing free speech” – not realizing, apparently, that the First Amendment applies to the action of government and states (like the Nazis and Mussolini’s fascists), not non-government groups (like antifascists; and like contemporary US fascists – so far). Unlike this article, antifascist activists generally oppose government intervention to suppress the free speech of fascists.

The article, like corporate media, also implicitly regurgitates the fascist lie that antifascist activists are attacking their free speech, and are just as violent as the fascists. This, actually, is not the case. If antifascists were attacking hate speech in general, then the Westboro Baptist Church would have been deplatformed years ago. Instead, they’re left alone, because unlike fascists, they do not bring violence into LGBTQIA+ and other marginalized communities.

Read any antifascist news site covering one of these far right speaking engagements. Prominently featured in any article you find will be reports about violent fascists coming into marginalized neighborhoods to attack, terrorize, possibly even outright murder people of color, queer people, undocumented people, or anyone else they view as a threat to their White Supremacist idyll.

Antifascist circles may have a problem with machismo – show me a sector of US society which doesn’t – but the primary reason that antifascist activists, including many feminists, support aggressive confrontations with fascists (I refuse to say violent, because antifascists punching and brawling with fascists is tame compared to the levels of violence used by fascists, and sometimes the police), is because in their analysis, such aggressive confrontations are the only way to protect themselves and vulnerable communities from violent attacks by fascists. When I shared the clowning article several months ago, I got a response that said, essentially, “Yeah, but that doesn’t work all the time; sometimes, you have to defend yourself.”

I’ll respectfully point out that telling members of a marginalized group they shouldn’t defend themselves comes off sounding pretty arrogant and out of touch. You can, of course, disagree with antifascist analyses of the situation and tactics – but only by engaging with the actual conditions they have to work under, rather than making up your own conditions out of a stew of right wing and corporate media fantasies. An article which looks at the actual facts of the situations antifascist activists have to deal with, and then critically engages with their tactics and discusses their merits and flaws intelligently and honestly – as this article seems to do with Bray’s book – would be immensely valuable. But I guess I’ll have to go on waiting for that article.

“It is reasonable to assume that most antifa activists involved in physical confrontations are young fit men, the same profile as most military forces and combatants in any armed struggle.”
Reasonable, but in my admittedly narrow experience, inaccurate. In terms of the more aggressive anti-fascist tactics here in the U.S., my impression is that the participants are almost as likely to be female as male, and not necessarily fit, or even nondisabled. The majority do seem to be in their 20s, 30s, or late teens, however. Be wary of making assumptions just because you disagree with their tactics.

Republish This Story for Free

Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Can antifa build an effective broad-based anti-fascist movement?

Thank you for your interest in republishing this story. You are are free republish it so long as you do the following:

You can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)

If you’re republishing online, you have to link to us and to include all of the links from our story.

You can’t sell our material separately.

It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories.

You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually.

You cannot republish our photographs without specific permission.

You have to credit us — ideally in the byline. We prefer “Author Name, Waging Nonviolence.”

WNV is a platform for movement media

Peace and justice organizations, as well as universities, publish their own independent content on Waging Nonviolence. This Community section offers just a sample of their latest stories. Visit their individual pages to see more.